Catholic Bishops Object to GOP Budget Proposal

A group of Catholic bishops have sent letters to Congress over the proposed budget cuts in Rep. Paul Ryan's GOP budget plan, arguing the cuts fail to meet the "moral criteria" of the church. Some excerpts of the letters are as follows:

"At a time of great competition for agricultural resources and budgetary constraints, the needs of those who are hungry, poor and vulnerable should come before assistance to those who are relatively well off and powerful."

"Just solutions ... must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs. The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria."

The demands within the letters are powerful accusations against the GOP, but seem to be falling on deaf ears. Speaker of the House John Boehner, responded by saying the bishops are missing the "bigger picture" of the GOP budget proposal, that without fiscal restraint, the country will be buried in debt and no social safety net programs will survive. Boehner seems to have missed the point where the bishops address "raising adequate revenue" to cover these basic, "moral" needs of the people.

It's also noteworthy that Boehner, and the rest of the GOP, didn't seem to see the 'big picture' last month when Catholic bishops and other religious institutions objected to the ACA's mandate that all institutions requiring employees to purchase health insurance must cover all patient needs, including birth control and contraception.

Obama and the Contraceptive Accommodation

I guess one of the things I find most appealing about Facebook is the access to information and opinion from my friends that I don’t find elsewhere. And I think the impersonal dialogue that exists through the site gives people incentive to write things they might not normally say during a conversation. For me personally it provides a gateway to my friends’ point-of-view that normally I do not think I would know. The contraception “controversy” dogging President Obama through the last couple of weeks has again provided a basis for some personal introspection on my part, some friendly banter on Facebook, and some evolving perspective on the issue.

It started with a link of mine to an article on Truthout.Org describing how this contraception issue is mostly being drummed by a partisan right-wing agenda to shift the upcoming presidential election towards social issues rather than the economy. The reason being this issue of having employers (including religious institutions) provide birth control care in their insurance plans has been law since 2000 and the Bush administration coming into office did absolutely nothing to appeal the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ruling that denying contraceptive care is in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination based on sex. So, clearly, this was never a problem until a democrat was in office and then it became an ‘example’ of “government overreach by this administration”.

My point in linking the article was to highlight this GOP hypocrisy, but a friend commented about the ruling itself, having also fallen into the trap that the government is only now overstepping its bounds (and never did in the previous 8 years of the Bush presidency). He mocked that toothpaste will be the next thing the government will require employers to cover in their insurance plans. I responded that that was ridiculous because toothpaste is over-the-counter, and further tried to make my point that I was not addressing the contraception issue per se (for my views on it were initially that I think religious organizations should be allowed to deny birth control coverage based on freedom of religion), but, again, the hypocrisy of the GOP to make this an issue now. My friend then posted this:

“Here’s what I think. I read an article about how England lost their right to own firearms. It started slowly and pitted gun owners against each other. The government first outlawed automatic firearms. This only affected persons who owned automatic firearms so everyone else who owned semi-autos, bolt actions, handguns, etc. said, 'Oh well, this doesn’t affect me.' Next the government outlawed semi-autos. So everyone that owned bolt actions, handguns, etc. said, 'Oh well, this doesn’t affect me.' Then they outlawed bolt actions and so on and so forth. In England, all firearms owners should have stood together to fight the bans whether it affected them of not, but they didn’t and the government was able to break them down piece by piece. I see this contraception deal as the same thing. Non-Catholics are saying, 'Why do we care? We believe in contraception and preventative pregnancy.' What non-Catholics should be saying is, 'We do not share the Catholic Church’s belief on contraception, but we stand behind them in their Constitutional right to believe and practice their religious views.' This isn’t about me being Republican and you being Democrat. This is about a slippery slope. This is the first step toward the Government impeding the free exercise of religion. This isn’t some conspiracy theory,[sic] it’s just what governments eventually do.”

After pointing out that my friend should read Martin Niemoller’s “First They Came...” quote on the rise of Nazi Germany, I dove into an argument showing how I think President Obama’s shift to exempt religious organizations/businesses from this Affordable Care Act requirement was a “slippery slope” inclined the other way. (Note: the administration is now shifting the burden of covering contraception to insurance companies.) In my view, offering this accommodation to businesses with religious affiliations creates the opportunity for other businesses to deny contraceptive coverage, not only because they might have a moral/religious objection to contraception, but because they might want to save a little money instead of provide care to their employees. What were to happen if one of the largest insurance companies in the country decided that they had moral objections to contraception because some of their top executives suddenly became devout 'Catholics'? And when businesses are granted special privileges, why can’t a state or local government not be offered these same exemptions to discriminate against women for contraceptive use? And the current GOP front runner for the presidential nomination is Rick Santorum, who has been running on a staunchly evangelical platform and wants a Constitutional Amendment banning all contraceptives. This outcome seems like the next step in accommodating one religious group, or in reality what we should classify the Catholic Church as, this one business. The more I think about this issue, the more I side with President Obama’s initial take on this (and the one the EEOC deemed in 2000) is that no one group should be allowed to discriminate from any one group.

And I think it bears to mention, that Ron Paul, who has a strong backing all over the country for the GOP nomination, believes the Civil Rights Act was itself unconstitutional and should be repealed, and by extension would disagree with the EEOC’s ruling. Paul, a long-serving Texas Congressman, seems to me a very dangerous individual to have in office. Congressman Paul thinks that if a business, a person, or really anybody, wants to discriminate against a race, a sex, or any other group they have it within their rights to do so. Paul does not seem to understand that one individual’s freedom cannot be limitless. According to Immanuel Kant, the famous German philosopher, individual freedom extends only to the cusp of infringing on another’s freedom. Sure, you have the right to own a gun, but if your right to have that gun to kill me infringes on my right to life, then you should have to relinquish that right. Such are the basis for laws. Such balance is the basis for the Civil Rights Act, and the mandate in the Affordable Care Act to require employers to cover contraception. Government has an obligation to protect the citizenry no matter of race, religion, or creed. It has an obligation to thwart any person or entity who wishes to restrict the autonomy of another.

Religious Freedom Is What's At Stake

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~ First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Mounting opposition to the proposed Muslim cultural center has thrust the building into the limelight of an already hostile electoral season. Those opposed to the cultural center, more often referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque," have cycled through a cadre of reasoning to be against construction of the center. The arguments have been made that the building will be a "terrorist training center;" others have drawn parallels of the cultural center's maiden name, "Cordoba House," to the takeover of a church in Spain in the 7th Century and its symbolism of hostile Islamic colonialism. And then there is the sensitivity argument, that for Muslims to build a mosque so near the worst terrorist attack on American soil is insincere to those who lost family members, friends, and loved ones. The focus has now shifted towards the funding of the cultural center, in whether the men and women funding it are terrorist sympathizers, or have dubious ties to any extremist group. Many proposing these reasons not to build the cultural center like to shy away from the "religious freedom" argument, the constitutional right provided by the First Amendment. But truly that is what this argument boils down to, as none of these other arguments stand up to any mindful scrutiny.

The argument over the cultural center's initial name has basically already been resolved. (I'll take this moment to say that I will not utter the continuance of "Ground Zero Mosque" from here on out because the term itself is laced with fear-mongering and jingoism. St. Paul's Chapel is not so uncharacteristically named the "Ground Zero Church." The proposed building is a place for all New Yorkers, and indeed for all people to visit. The inclusion of a prayer space on the top two floors should not advocate the use of the aforementioned name.) Initially, the cultural center was to be called "Cordoba House." But after the repetition of the origin of that name, a story meant only to ingrain fear into the minds of the population, the builders of the cultural center changed the name to Park51. I wonder if Adidas is next on Newt Gingrich's hit list?

Once the builders were pressured into altering the name, the arguments continued to mount against the cultural center. Sensitivity became a staunch bulwark against allowing the project to move forward, and is probably the biggest reason that most New Yorkers are against the building of the cultural center. The argument is simply: extremist Muslims attacked us so other Muslims should be sensitive to Americans' grief and not build near ground zero. There are just oh so many things wrong with this argument.

First, it is a fallacy to parallel the extremists, the terrorists, who attacked us on 9/11 with the Islamic religion as a whole. It is well known that all religions have their extremists: Hitler, McVeigh, Cruise; 19 men who hijacked 4 planes. If you want to talk insensitivity, then please do not miss the insensitivity of those Americans who cast blame on all Muslims for 9/11. "We fear what we do not understand." A common phrase uttered in so many ways, yet poignant as always even in this debate. Muslims were killed too that day; peaceful Americans who lived and worked beside the Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, etc. who also died in those towers.

Secondly, expounding on the above, do those who take their beliefs to the extremist level, or those who distort their beliefs to fit their own selfish worldview mirror an entire population? Are all Germans, Nazis? Hardly. Would we classify a Catholic man or woman we met on the street a pedophile? A certainly hope not. Have Americans been benevolently sensitive to Native Americans for the land we took from them by force? As our current sitting President pushed for Health Care Reform earlier this year, Rush Limbaugh compared the legislation to black reparations. In accordance with the logic that all Muslims must be "sensitive" to the placement of their cultural center then yes, white Americans must always be overly sensitive to the most inconsequential needs of black Americans, something I'm sure Mr. Limbaugh would wholeheartedly disagree with. Even this year, as the Catholic Church faced new swirling allegations of child molestation, Pope Benedict XVI barely raised a concern over the reports of a priest in Ireland found guilty of molestation and even his own involvement, as then a Cardinal of the church, in protecting a priest who molested over 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin in the 1970s. The Pope, and the Vatican itself, tried to spin the story into an attack on Catholicism, a "victimizer is the victim" rebuttal, instead of apologizing and making a strong push for increased punishments of the guilty. But clearly, since it is a christian institution, especially in this country and more especially from constituents on the political right, the same standards do not apply to a church, or a synagogue, as they would to a mosque.

Third, how far exactly would building a mosque in New York from Ground Zero no longer be "insensitive" to Americans, or Christians, or whoever? There is a Mosque currently in the Pentagon, just 80 feet from where that hijacked plane crashed, as well as an actual mosque just 4 blocks from Ground Zero.

While simultaneously questioning the sensitivity of Muslims to want to build a cultural center, that just so happens to contain a mosque, near ground zero, the opposition slid into the debate the question of who exactly was funding the mosque. If terrorists were found to be supplying the funds for the construction then surely it would seem the cultural center would be a breeding ground for extremists right under our own noses, right on the very soil of liberty for which we all stand. The argument, however, devolved quickly into a "guilt by association" game of finger-pointing and incredulity. But, as Jon Stewart pointed out, this is a dangerous game. (Seriously, watch this whole clip if you haven't seen it.) And now, Fox5 news in New York is running a story about a man, one of the projects funders, and a donation he made to what he thought was a charity, but turned out to be linked to Hamas, a known cell of extremists.

My mother was once duped into donating money to an unknown man or woman claiming to be a missionary stranded and in strife in some war-torn African nation. Turns out, the person was not displaced and through the naivety of my mother (she's new to the Internet), the person was able to get her social security number and ultimately her bank account information, extorting money from her. Luckily no long term damage was done, and my mom secured her accounts without loss. The point being, naivety or out-right trickery and deception by one party, does not apply guilt to the other. Because this person claimed to be a christian, should my mom apply mistrust to all Christians forever more? No. And what of those who make donations, or contributions to the Catholic Church? (Sorry Catholics. I do not mean to pick on you. I'm only drawing similarities to the church in order to shed light on the hypocrisy of opposing the cultural center.) If the man who made a contribution to what he thought was a Muslim charity, but in actuality was linked to terrorists is then labeled a terrorist, any contributor to the Catholic church is then linked to pedophilia, a pedophile themselves, or at least sympathetic to pedophiles. None of which is true, and the same over-reaching should not be applied to the cultural center. And should this man be found guilty of knowingly aiding a terrorist group, I presume the group trying to build this mosque would immediately sever ties with him and those associated with him, what the Catholic Church failed to do with the pedophile priest in Wisconsin.

Without any of these arguments, the controversy over the proposed cultural center near ground zero boils down to one of our most basic rights of freedom and liberty in this country. Even with any of these arguments, our First Amendment right to freedom of religion should be at the base of any argument. This debate is not about sensitivity, nor the name of the building, nor even the matter of who is funding it (I'd love to see an Op-Ed somewhere drawing the parallels of funding political campaigns via the Citizens United v. FEC case to funding this cultural center; alas, I have not the time right now to launch into it.). This debate is about upholding the pinnacle that is this country and maintaining the very values for which people of all faiths, of all ethnicities, of all races and colors have sought to assimilate, stewing in the broth of liberty.